Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
wsj.com
wsj.com
My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with 'good ads'. Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.
It's a very risky move on Google's part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.
> Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.
I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct.
And your guess does seem very plausible.
Which Google have done to other extensions many times.
* Enable Developer Options
* Add Ublock package zip
* Enable in Incognito as well
TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.
I commented about it about a month ago[1]
Have you tried Packing them? I have yet to experience this.
As long as there is tech savy people there will be plenty of solutions around.
They just haven't pissed off anyone enough to get a big fork going. Or their code just wasn't good enough, as obviously uBlock Origin is currently doing the same and was written from scratch.
– Maybe we could act as gatekeepers so our competitors have to go through us to advertise on our browser? We could wrap it as "only letting in the nice ads" or whatever…
– Brilliant!
It's been assigned to some unknown person since 2015.
Though I'm not so sure the reason for it's delay in coming to Android isn't technical rather than organizational.
Brave for Android is based off of Chromium and it didn't have extensions either.
It sounds like the way extension APIs were initially implemented didn't lend itself to a Android port.
"We never had the Android version compiling with extension support in the first place - in our early development internally, we hacked/commented/disabled random parts of extension code just to get the binary to compile, and we later tidied this up to disable extensions in a neater way to save binary size. So, you are basically talking about actually implementing extension support for android from scratch, including adding every thing that extensions require but aren't currently implemented for Android. This isn't likely to be especially easy. " - https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/chr...
Though I don't understand why since Firefox mobile extensions are based off a similarly designed system (Jetpack) to Chromes.
It seems that if nothing else they could create a new API for extensions on Android.
Moreover, Mozilla is currently actually switching to an extended version of Chrome's extension API (which Mozilla calls "WebExtensions"). They had no problem implementing that on Android Firefox. Obviously, yes, there are APIs that just don't make sense on a mobile browser, but you have a well-defined API, so just blacklist extensions that require these APIs.
The single best improvement I've made to my mobile browsing experience in years wasn't getting a new faster phone, it was installing Brave and disabling javascript.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/toggle-javasc...
Brave is a Chrome fork so for those of us who prefer Chrome it's a better option (for now anyway).
then use your 10 top websites with whitelisted javascript access on firefox mobile, and full javascript on chrome and came back to say which one was faster.
Their modus operandi appears to be (1) launch edgy experimental stuff, (2) forget it exists, (3) be reminded it exists, (4) ruin it by killing it or rewriting it.
Or they could use the Android entry point. The EU seems to think they have a monopoly there, which would imply a "mobile browser" monopoly.
I don't mind ordinary display adds, I even like them in the sense that I like a web model that's sustainable.
To make most commercial websites usable, I simply disabled Autoplay in FF which silenced the most abusive screaming video ads and made surfing the web pleasant again.
(about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled;false)
Not saying ad blockers are bad -I use them- just that your analogy breaks down quickly.
I point out that GP is in a mostly voluntarily relationship with those websites.
I find this a really weird attitude that I just can't get behind.
"Here, let me give you some money by watching something that will try to convince me to buy something that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. Just doing my civic duty here!"
That's what it sounds like to me. You want to help someone else, so you agree to be allowed to be told to buy something you didn't need or know about until you saw the ad. It's... weird. It's a very strange method to power the economy. Allowing your mind to be molded in the shape the big guy wants it for the sake of the little guy.
I myself just flat out refuse to have my mind manipulated like this. There's gotta be a better way for the little guy to make money.
"You owe the companies nothing. You especially don't owe them any courtesy. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
"...any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours, it belongs to you... its yours to take, rearrange and re use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head."
Banksy is to "attentional integrity" what Stallman is to software freedom: radical-sounding, heretical to big business, and very very right.
The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doing. The content-blocking rules are only provided by third parties.
Google is probably doing this because it makes their browser faster—not because of some wild conspiracy to show more advertisements.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge...
Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.
Apart from shutting them down.
If a new tech comes along that destroys your business, you should invest in that tech or you risk becoming blockbuster while Netflix rises. If Blockbuster had taken its opportunity to buy netflix or build a competitor it would still be in business today.
Same thing with all those oil companies becoming energy companies. Solar and wind are displacing coal and oil, and all the big energy companies are in on it. They don't look at risk of going under soon.
Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?
If you put ads on page e.g. Amazon product that relates to your content with affiliate link, that's fair and acceptable and appreciated.
If you put an ad that your audience may be interested in, unrelated to your content e.g. content creator reviewing restaurants also advertises for gyms in my area. It is fair and tolerated.
If you outsource what ad gets shown to me, leaving me at mercy of brokers and exchanges who target me with ads based on my entire profile, ads not just related to content that I requested, but ads created based on what the ad broker/exchange know about me personally. Seeing ads for athletes foot remedy that I searched for last week, when I am looking at camera reviews is not acceptable and makes me feel totally ethical when I use ad-blockers. You, the content host, is basically luring me in with promise of content and pulling bait and switch by bombarding ads on me, things like splitting content into bite size pieces across 20 pages to convert single request into 20 impressions is waste of my time, I don't have to deal with it and will use ad-blockers without any guilt on such sites.
People have trained their eyes to not register the ads, e.g. mobile ads that scroll over the page. This is similar to browsing a print magazine and not registering ads at all consciously.
The advertisers declared war on people, looking at them as crop to be harvested. Well, the people have an opinion about this and I am totally fine with the battle raging on.
What makes an ad an ad has nothing to do with potential-viewer intent. Lack of viewer intent is what makes it an _unwanted_ ad.
I happen to have a certain ad framed and on my wall at home. I spent money on the ad, and more money to frame it. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 'request'.
Guess what? It is still an ad.
My Take: Redefine what ad means for web browsing, e.g. any information coming from a third party like iframes. All other types of information, paid or not paid, is part of the web page and not worth blocking.
FIFY.
I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached.
The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. The ad blocker-makers are tiny, fragmented and unfortunately muddled with some crappy products that sell whitelist entries; this is a good time for Google to try to knife them, before a market leader emerges.
And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above.
How exactly is:
" The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. "
If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
Except when it comes to chat/text communication. In that case they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker".
And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere?
No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
Bad ads ruin it for Google. They teach users to mentally block ALL ads. It's like people abusing antibiotics and building a resistance.
That might be why someone proposed it. But your parent comment mentions why management approved of the risky move:
> They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
So if - and that is a big if - Google goes ahead with this plan, they will have to make absolutely sure that any blocking is based on objective and simple to understand quality criteria.
And for the record, I don't think everyone at Google is evil, but I imagine a few managers are in it for the money and not merely the altruistic idea of making ads better.
On the contrary, it is completely obvious that Google has very little to gain from shaving a few percentage points off competitors and incur the risk of regulatory action.
The greatest danger they face is ad blockers and a general decline of the Web. If Google is in it for the money they must save the Web from death by advertising.
Ads that drive me on a different page, cover the full page unless closed or otherwise hamper navigation unless I interact with them first can die in a firey hell.
I've uBlock but youtube and other content creators sites that so far hasn't annoyed me with ads are free to go. I.e. Looking For Group started serving to mobile page redirecting ads, so they went in the blacklist, but until then they were free to serve whatever.
You walking down the street having a guy handing out leaflets, trying to force his leaflet on you... You're most likely to get annoyed by them.
There is a little stand at the corner having leaflets, without anyone yelling in your face or handing it out, you're more likely to go grab one if the product fits you.
Walking to work every morning I have created my real life AdBlock, where I just ignore people handing stuff. (Not their fault... just businesses not understanding how to change ways)
This.
Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...
If Marine le Pen wins on the other hand...
Perhaps electing Le Pen might actually do some good to it by forcing others to change?
A democratic political union must be based on stronger foundations than just having a couple of sister parties sharing the power in turns.
I look forward to seeing what happens to any businesses that get too greedy and disregard what happens when the pendulum swings left again.
I wonder what would be happening now if we had a wave of left-wing populists taking office instead.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scummy ad companies.
In my mind they're the "I can't afford Adsense" ad company, their website interface feeds into that too.
Also, the pricing system seems quite nice, a continuous second-price auction.
It all seems very "fair".
Which will take years and the fine will be a pitance of the profit. Microsoft got away with anti-competitive behavior several times in the past and they came out better than before. Google can use the time to try to kill of any competition before anyone will stop it, get a slap on the wrist and it will be back to business as usual.
Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.
Any technical reason why they couldn't?
A concrete example: Chrome is in a position to block those who use canvas/webgl fingerprinting for user tracking, and Google's ad business can avoid being blocked by not doing that.
Google already has what, 90% marketshare? They don't need to put their competitors out of business and would gain very little from doing so (their real competition is probably Facebook and they're fundamentally much harder to apply an adblocker to, since they control both the content and the advertising). Google do need to stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent.
In the end, it is probably true that the competition is not really an issue, but Google need not "stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent", because if it lets too many ads pass people will simply get back to the old third party adblockers.
Firefox is overwhelmingly dependent on Yahoo for income, and Yahoo is an ad company.
Overall I feel that Firefox is sufficiently customisable, that it's probably the easiest browser to protect your privacy in and control content. I like Safari, but customisation is harder to do.
Probably a good call. I've actually suggested they do this before. I doubt it made it to them given it was on a private forum. It's amusing to see it happening, though. It's an extension of monopolistic practices where one blocks out all competition to give their own self an advantage.
They will probably clearly post criteria for what makes an ad acceptable or not and state that Chrome will block it if it doesn't meet them. Or maybe Chrome will show them but somehow punish the webmaster like they do to sites that don't use HTTPS or have mobile friendly pages.
This is why I'm not going back to Chrome and not going to stop using ad blocker extensions and the network wide ad-blocker at home.
It's not even difficult to do so, by eg. serving pages from a Google-controlled CloudFlare-like proxy service and/or a high-profile Google-style HTML-to-JavaScript encoder. Google's AMP project shows they're willing to throw the decentralized web under the bus.
The real question is: are you ok with ad-financed web sites in general, but have a problem with tracking (like me)? If so, we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads, or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter.
> or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
This is already being developed by the FSF as a Firefox extension. It makes the modern web completely unusable (of course) but it's the principle that counts, right?
> Like https, this will put alternative ad networks out of business.
How did https do anything like that?
They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.
You are right. That fee is anything but fair. I was under the impression that they were operating their program under a non-profit, but it doesn't seem so.
As you pointed out, we're a company. That means making money to defend against lawsuits, paying employees, etc.
It's not blackmail though, because as it was also pointed out, most websites join for free. No strings attached. Well, the strings are that the ads they want to display need to meet all of the Acceptable Ads criterias, which we found most users don't mind.
That allows us to find a middle ground between "we're drinking all the beer and pay nothing" that other, more scorched-earth-like adblockers go for, and the "oh gods my eyes"-design some ad-bloated websites go for, which no one really wants.
From a publisher perspective, we're not the evil guys either. We're not reducing anyone's revenue, we're allowing publishers to recuperate some of the losses caused by the user's choice of opting out of really annoying ads.
Hope this made sense!
Also, it's frustrating to still see your company play the "help us out we're broke" card by asking for donations after install even though you're a venture-funded company.
If anything, you guys should be going after the ad-networks since they are the ones allowing the malicious and rude ads to be placed - not the people whose livelihood depends on ads.
FSF's LibreJS initiative is laudible, and something I'm willing to support with what I'm offering on the web. I found that sites that have content worth reading typically aren't script-heavy and entirely usable without script, or by using either F/OSS JavaScript (including jquery) and "trivial scripts" according to FSFs definition. The notorious exceptions are Google Analytics, ReCaptcha, and maybe Disqus, for which solutions must be found. Google Analytics, and the necessity to make use of it might be a case where Google as a major sponsor of web standards are acting in conflict with a solution based on web standards.
Wrt. ABP my initial gut reaction to paid ABP acceptable ads was extremely negative, but maybe I might reconsider.
Turns out, that (currently) involves ad blockers. For a while, I tried to use only uMatrix (i.e. blocking third-party requests), without an ad blocker. Sites broke because they assumed they could load Google Analytics. Workaround: Install uBlock Origin, because it (like NoScript) knows how to fake out specific scripts enough that a stubbed-out version of GA is used and the rest of the page runs correctly.
Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker, does not block Google ads by default, because they are considered non-intrusive.
I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why;
1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile.
2. They don't need to. They just need to make it switched off by default and 90% of users won't ever see it or use it. Only people who are interested will seek it out, and those people are already seeking ad-blocking extensions.
3. Other browsers are implementing it. Google need to include it to stop users who are interested in that feature switching browser.
4. Google need data. They get value from tracking people even if they're not seeing adverts. By blocking the ads specifically, even their own adverts, they still get to track users and derive value from that data. Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen.
5. Given the fact they have a effective monopoly on adverts on the main web the lost revenue from blocked ads will have a bigger impact on their competitors than them. Google can afford to lose far more ad impressions than the next, much smaller network. They can block their own ads and still drive their competitors out of business. That said, I don't think Google are evil enough to do that. I'm just saying they don't need to let their own ads through if the plan is to kill off the competition.
Good point. After using uBlock Origin for a while now, "ads" have become synonymous with "tracking scripts" to me. I'd bet Google's adblocker wouldn't block Google Analytics from running, like uBlock does.
The ad-blocking they're talking about implementing won't block every ad; they said as much. It'll only block the malicious or annoying ads. Google could block those on it's own network already (maybe they already do!). They'll start block them in the Chrome ad-blocking code. That means they'll block their own ads if adSense is serving something that fails their test. They might even use the same "is this ad bad for the user?" heuristics that they use on their servers, effectively meaning Chrome users can benefit from the work they've done in detecting bad adverts even on sites where the site owner has chosen a different ad network. I think that's a good thing.
Whether we'll ever actually see the result of when it comes to an adSense advert is a separate question - it's in Google's interest to block a bad ad at the origin and send a different one instead so they still get paid. That would mean Chrome never actually blocks an adSense advert because they know exactly what won't be displayed and never send anything that would be blocked. I still see that as Google blocking ads on their own network though, just farther up the chain.
So if it's any good at blocking Google ads, it costs them money.
If it blocks ads other than Google ones well, and allows Google ones to display, then they run the risk of lawsuits or antitrust action.
What? By know, people are accustomed to Google flip flopping on key decisions; this will be just another instance.
I don't want to block all ads
I want an ad blocker that protects me from popunder (is there any point to those ?) popups, autoplay videos, ad walls and other shitty ads that make my experience awful.
I don't want an adblocker that blocks everything by default and where I have to manually white list all the sites I consult regularly.
I already spent a while on some really good blogs before realizing that adblock was killing all their ads for no reason.
I recall reading that the original intention of popunder ads was to provide a degree of separation between the site content and the ad, as you see the ad. isolated rather than directly next to the site content. By doing so, the ad. provider has to worry less about their brand appearing next to content they may find objectionable.
By controlling the ad experience at this level (and this possibly being the only way to avoid being blocked), Google can enforce an ad-experience that is akin to in-feed facebook ads.
It also provides a far greater level of security around the ad unit and a far better level of accurate targeting (cookies don't get used, your login does). These two things together provide a new way to interact / monetise those ad units.
> The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web.
> Unacceptable ad types would be those recently defined by the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group that released a list of ad standards in March. According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”
Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.
Essentially, I believe Google and a subset of their industry competitors (other ad networks) have two goals here:
1. to stem the losses imposed by 100% ad/tracking blockers, by providing a default blocker that deals with very obnoxious ads that might prompt average users to install one of the existing ad blockers.
2. to reduce their need to pay protection money to AdBlock plus etc.
So, if you happen to be using ads that are overly obnoxious (popups, autoplaying videos, etc) then yeah, your message is basically what they're saying, but not because it's non-google, just because it's making the other ad networks look bad.
I don't know how they'll implement it technically, but the fact that they are not talking about the WebKit-style content blocking using compiled pattern lists means they probably have little interest in benefitting end-users (webkit content blockers give better privacy, performance, battery life etc, compared to traditional "run this code every time a website loads" blockers)
this is exactly how it would go. This is anything but benevolent, this is another one of googles blatant anti-trust maneuvers to force you deeper into their walled-garden.
I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-behaved ads. I think this is a step forward. I hate blocking ads across the board - I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety. I can tolerate the rest.
But I think this is a great step to stop the "race to the bottom".
Right now there is no incentive for an ad network to make "well behaved" ads. Most of the "ad blocking crowd" will block them regardless of how nice they are, and advertisers will pay less for them, and site owners don't care because the money gets better the scummier the ads are.
By auto-blocking sites with the worst offenders at the browser level they can start to push all sides toward wanting "better" ads. It gives networks, advertisers, and site owners all incentive to make sure their ads are unobtrusive and safe.
But I don't think that's a good reason to fight it from the start.
There are several angles to be wary of. Locking out competitors, replacing competitor ads with their own, forcing sites to migrate to, or back to, Google ad networks, etc.
I agree, they need to thread carefully, but things need to change, and that change needs to come from two angles: publishers whoring out their users and ad networks not taking responsibility for what they let on their networks.
Really? I've never used Google ads, so for all I know you're right, but why would none of the ~600 comments in the previous discussion [1] mention that?
I'm on the Adx platform, which was invite only a few years back. It has some differences to Adsense, but I believe ad review and transparency with what creatives are displayed is part of both cores.
If I were to guess, there were 600 people in the thread who were not actually publishers using Google ads.
And what would be one reasonable response that a company reliant on ads for income who also happens to produce a browser used by a huge number of users look like when they realize this existential threat exists? Well, one reasonable response would be exactly this, a "kill the misbehaving ones" addition to that browser in hopes of heading off the threat before it becomes a true, company killing, result.
Only time will tell if this change in mindset on their part actually results in heading off the eventual outcome.
I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest
They've also hosted fake download ads for e.g. Skype.
Adsense has its more than fair share of low quality ads. Of course, you can't compare it to popups/sound-ads etc. but compared to the past, it's certainly way lower. (Keep in mind the experience varies wildly based on your profile. Geo etc.)
Turns out it was coming from a network called Sovrn, which is ironically a member of betterads.org and apparently "recently added an extra layer of protection from malware and redirects, all of [their] creatives are pre-scanned before they are served."
If something else on the page doesn't, presumably Chrome will block Google's ads too.
It's a good start, but consumers deserve a better ad experience for approved formats too.
YouTube doesn’t have auto-playing video ads with sound?
YouTube doesn’t have countdown based ads blocking the content?
Google.com always has less than 3 ads?
The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety".
For example, I don't expect Google to block ads that violate users' privacy by tracking them. But I hope they surprise me!
I never thought of this implementation but I imagine this is one of the few ways Google can bundle in ad blocking in Chrome. As long as third party blockers (specifically uBlock Origin https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode for me) I don't mind. I go back and forth to using Mozilla Firefox mostly because I use it on Android but I appreciate all that Google has done to move the web forward.
Monopoly abuse can of course impact both suppliers as well as customers, but in this case it's probably more likely to only impact advertisers.
- As individuals we can switch to other search engines and browsers, so it's difficult to abuse a monopoly that way.
- However, as long as we keep using Google, advertisers might have no other option to get a reach this valuable. So Google could possibly exploit its position towards advertisers. (e.g. Favor its own ads over other ad networks).
Still looks like a net win for end users.
Even working on projects where we wanted to see online adverts, all ad networks were null routed at our border. We saw too much variety of risks in letting adverts traverse the lan.
I'm (very) out of touch, but is it expected to view pages complete with advertising - unadulterated - in modern corporate setting?
If so, is there good reason for this? Or am I missing relevant firewall tech?
There's no way that Google can effectively be police, judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time, given their own massive conflicts of interest.
One of the problem is the definition of "intrusive and dangerous" varies wildly from person to person. Ad blockers have generally handled this by blocking everything while giving the ability to whitelist exceptions. I imagine it would be much more difficult to get good user satisfaction by attacking this from the opposite approach.
Except if you're Google and have near-infinite ML resources at your disposal and 50% of the browser market. An algo could be trained by a thumbs up / thumbs down to spot good and bad ads / vendors within six months.
https://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-re...
We talked about this only a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083
If chrome team who thinks about the world and ads team who thinks about $$$ are total separate entities who don't influence each other for special interests then I applaud the effort.
I hope this is done in the open in chromium source code. Basically the current way extensions work is by injecting massive amounts of CSS and js in the page. This makes a lot of optimizations in chrome useless for fast page renders. Doing an optimized ad block engine would make chrome feel faster
I still cannot wrap my head around publishers apparently disinterested in manually clearing ad copy for press approval.
Can anyone delineate a non obvious history to this complete laissez faire?
back in print media each ad had to be placed by hand. it also had the aquired though manual labor. those things seriously limited the number of people publishing since the majority of your time was spent not making content for your zine but instead chasing down ads.
the internet changed that. here's a spot on my page . fill it with ads please. make those ads geographically specific and or user specific . write me a check for $$$.
it seems pretty obvious that history. if I decided the put ads on my sites I certainly would not have the time to find relevant ads for the world or even just my country. that's not something I want to deal with.
that said, if there was a good ad company that currated their ads well, did not share info with 3rd parties and track users I'd certainly consider signing up to that over others
I started ad sales using numerical techniques on the turn of the nineties. Our first hurdle was to bat off vexatious law suits brought by agencies, for copyright materials theft every time a major sent us the separations. All digital imposition - the layout of pages in final form to the n-up web offset affines that creates the cut pages in sequence from a running roller fold, indeed could require no manual intervention. (copy dot scanners captured and re digitized the pre stochastic screens of adverts)
But I think you mean addressing the spots, or paginating what goes where.
This is still actually manual for a ad network, if you mean deciding advert a never runs nearer than n pages to advert b, or ad y never runs in section k. Just the scale is inverted. And with it, pricing power, which is almost entirely buy side.
I could easily flip a galley proof of the magazine pages laid out as they will run, in under a minute for all but the bulk ad titles like PCWorld..
That was the scrutiny I meant.
Are there no tools to assist pre screening ad network proposed flows? I imagine, also, offensive adverts rarely have budget for impressions. I bet cutting the bottom 20% would solve most problems...
I think that's backwards? The offensive ads are generally paying more, no?
Imagine if a store said they didn't have enough staff to QA the products they sell, so they shouldn't be blamed for injuries related to their crappy products. It's 2017, you can't say you didn't known lawn darts were dangerous and you really shouldn't admit you didn't know your store was even selling lawn darts.
To speculate on just one possible strategy:
- First order of business, crush Ad Block plus' pay to play business. Possibly just by entering the market with resources, IP, and channel that would overwhelm them.
- Continue on this path until Google is the leader and standard setter, beating everyone on price
- Start to innovate around adding higher value pay to play features, prioritization, options, etc, until it becomes a business with a decent margin.
- Decide whether to wage all out ware with blockers that don't participate in a revenue share program. The war would be multi-pronged with technical, political, and PR fronts. A large team would work 24/7 to instantly defeat blocker updates in an effort to wear them down. Lobbyists would press hard to legislate and control ad-blocking to "protect" content creators. PR would enlist high profile loved content creators, show how much we love their work, and that now, they are forced to live in a cardboard box due to your ad-blocking.
If 60 Billion in revenue is threatened, how does it play out any nicer than this?
They can certainly put ABP out of business, which honestly is fine with me. But UO isn't a business AFAIK, it's a Free open-source project. That's like trying to put vim out of business; you just can't, because there's no business there. Google can certainly change Chrome to prevent UO from working, but they can't do the same for Firefox, nor can they really for Chromium (though their actions can make it difficult, but that could also mean that many other non-blocker extensions won't work if they're too restrictive).
Finally, these aren't the only browsers out there. Apple's Safari might also refuse to go along, and even go directly against Google somehow (including their own Google-ad-blocker, or helping UO work on their browser). Apple doesn't live on ads like Google does.
Finally, as for legislation, that doesn't make much sense either. First, I have a hard time seeing any Federal US laws actually succeed that force users to view ads, and even if such a law passed, there's no way to enforce it. How would they? Are websites going to sue users whose browsers don't actually download all their ads? That'll be great for PR. Or are they going to block users who don't download the ads (they're already doing this on some sites). If it gets that bad, it wouldn't be hard for ad-blockers to switch to simply downloading all the ads, and then sending them to /dev/null instead of displaying them.
The end game of ad blocking is that everybody installs one. That would be devastating to Google. Instead, they would rather preinstall theirs. If theirs is the default adblocker even on just Chrome, they'll have substantial market share. Most people won't bother installing a browser extension if it the default is good enough, just like how most people don't use vim if TextEdit is good enough.
Most of my nontechnical friends don't use adblockers. In 10 years most people might. Google is preventing that from destroying them by shipping their own as a default instead.
This is just plain wrong. You're not understanding the meaning of "kill": that means that it's dead, gone, unable to be used.
Many, many people (millions?) use vim every day. I do, and others I know do too. People who use vim don't care about what editors other people use; it's just as irrelevant as what cars other people drive. I can go buy a Honda, a Tesla, or some 50-year-old antique, and drive it if I want, legally. Other people buying Fords has no effect on that. No one cares about everyone, everywhere using vim, only that it's available and it works. That's not changing, and there's no indication it will ever change.
>The end game of ad blocking is that everybody installs one.
No, because there are technical ways of getting around them. Look at all the sites that have anti-ad-blockers installed, and force you to turn off your ad-blocker to see the site. Of course, the ad-blockers have been working on ways of defeating those, so it's an arms race.
>If theirs is the default adblocker even on just Chrome, they'll have substantial market share. Most people won't bother installing a browser extension if it the default is good enough, just like how most people don't use vim if TextEdit is good enough.
Who cares about "most people"? I don't. My whole assertion is: how will they prevent other blockers, like UBlock Origin, from being used? If they're not going to bother, then great, but that's not what the OP claimed: he claimed they'd find ways of actively preventing 3rd-party blockers from being used, either technically or legislatively.
>Google is preventing that from destroying them by shipping their own as a default instead.
Wrong. Google isn't preventing anything, as long as they don't actively prevent you from installing a 3rd-party blocker. The message I replied to alleged that this would happen.
As power and money become more centralized in fewer hands, the ability to abuse DRM and standards, and to coerce partners and content providers into falling in line, becomes cheaper. Google declares legal and technical war on ad blockers while offering a "better" solution laden with incentives; Firefox gets bought off or coerced to be compliant. The barrier to disruption becomes not only a high technical bar, but a legal one as well.
I don't think there's a clear path to this that I can see right now, but we're a LONG way from Microsoft's defeat in the browser wars (both in terms of time and political environment) and a lot of shit I didn't think I'd see over the last two decades has happened after all. The broader interpretation of Gilmore's notable quote ("The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it") is less applicable today than it's ever been--in part because to a large degree, "censorship" has been replaced by "loss of profit".
1) It's illegal to sell cars from Telsa in many states because...I can't even stand to repeat it.
2) It's illegal to give your child pot, even when it's a pharmaceutical grade product shown to be the only cure for her epileptic seizures, and even if done with 100% physician oversight. I would so enjoy a morality debate with a congressman in a state choosing to stand by and do nothing while a small child shakes violently on the ground.
Ad-blocking is not the same. Ad-blocking doesn't prevent you from seeing most sites (and for those that it does, you can selectively turn off the ad-blocker; you don't have to ditch your browser). What incentive would Firefox have to prevent people from installing an ad-blocker? If they did that, they'd lose whatever relevance they still had, because people would just switch to Chrome.
It would be more fair if Google implemented a micropayments system that would be distributed to the websites a user is using most / where the user wants to tip. Google already has payments integrated through the app store. If they created a new kind of "micropayments sponsored" content category, it would help content producers to earn an income. The monthly amount to be tipped should be capped in total, say, $1/person, not much. Google can still make money by taking a small fee from the micropayments.
"Disable ads and support websites for $1/month". Something like that. It's like getting access to music from a subscription service, but the upside is that surfers get to support their favorite sources.
Currently the program isn't accepting new users, but it is set to relaunch this year [0].
An AdSense robot flagged us two times for violating policies regarding "calling attention" to advertising because of this "sticky" ad unit. I appealed, didn't work, and had to roll back AdSense lest our company get banned.
In a later conversation, a Google rep reached out to wonder why we weren't showing Google ads. I explained the policy violations and that we were more interested in our floating ad unit then AdSense. A few emails later and poof! I was assured there would be no more policy violations issued over this ad unit, and we were able to roll back onto AdSense inventory.
Would Google partners get blocked at the same rates as non-Google partners? Perhaps not.
With such seemingly capricious decisions by Google, and so little customer service resources outside of robot policy automation and appeals, I worry about the company playing this role.
The "3 ads max" rule goes out the window as well.
I don't have a problem with this approach. I see it as a given that they would strike different deals with the breadwinners.
I used to have a rep as well, and he also made some problems I had magically disappear.
Someone forgets that for a few days YouTube was serving malware in their ads.
Edit: This actually pushed me back to Firefox after using chromium for years.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
They are trying to be both the player and the judge at the same time.
And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that just serves as a client GUI to your ad-stripping proxy's control channel. (Or giving the daemon a system-tray icon that launches an Electron GUI or something.)
The development of ad-blockers outside of the browser kind of stalled ~5 years ago, but only because everyone has been pretty satisfied with the browser extension solution to the problem. Take it away, and other solutions will just come back into play, with all the modern lessons learned from building the browser-extensions brought in.
Compare adblocking today: step 1, search for extension. Step 2, install extension. Step 3, there is no step 3.
Now convince your parents to install a proxy, then proceed to explain they can have it on each machine (don't forget phones and tablets!) or centrally on the network (now don't forget to explain about local network while at home versus 4g when they are away)... yada yada yada.
The simple workflow:
Step 1. search for "ad-blocker" on your OS's app store/package manager;
Step 2. choose one [that happens to be a proxy daemon]; hit install.
Step 3. Enter your password when the app asks for admin permission to finish installing (i.e. to install the proxy daemon as a background service, and autoconfigure your OS proxy settings. But you don't need to be aware of that.)
That's a lot of headwinds on a bit of code, but they are possible to overcome, if the motivation, and perhaps even more importantly, the humility is there.
Heck, if you don't mind an extra 100MB of memory consumption, you could probably throw a "correct" proxy-daemon together in Javascript by relying on the browser network stack of a [headless] Electron instance.
Also it looks like Chrome actually ignores pinning for proxies as a feature: http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/security-faq#...
Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."
if (isAdsense) { return false; } // Whatever we do is totally cool of course
runAdblockDetect();Another reason to do so is to make sure users will not be forced to install ad-block manually therefore make sure more users see google ads. Because obviously "Google AdBlocker" will show ads from Google and partners.
[1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 (visually, a page with no ads) => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large
Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)
If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there.
On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.
All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.
I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.
The creator can have input, they have no say in a public environment.
>To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.
The permission has already been granted. If it's on the web I can download it and use it for whatever dirty personal uses I can imagine.
I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.
Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just view the page without the advertisement"
-------------------
Person A: "I've built this car. I'll let you drive it if you keep the speed under 60 miles per hour"
Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just drive your car and go at whatever speed I like"
-------------------
Person A: "I baked a cake. I'll let you eat it if you give me $5"
Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just eat the cake and give you nothing"
Big sites take countless man hours to produce and maintain.
For the site I've worked on for almost a decade 95 of 100 user comments are totally off base and they don't understand the basics of how things work.
If Google is really interested in ensuring good user experiences, they should work with the EFF to set up a fund of some kind to support this work, and then have EFF manage it.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads....
Step 1. Surprise the world with better ad blocking tech than what currently exists.
Step 2. When trust in tech is established, start blocking ads from other ad networks by calling them foul. Do this slowly so it's not obvious.
Step 3. Wait for customers of other ad networks to notice their ads are not effective.
Step 4. Steal customers...Profit.
Blocking ads is not an easy job. Especially with things like native ads. Blocking shitty ads should be easier though.
More likely is an antitrust lawsuit.
I went to check on the status of that program and got this message:
We’re launching a new and improved Contributor in early 2017!
Edit: though from the article it really does seem much more benign.
Disclosure: I am working on what is, ostensibly, a competing product.
I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming bandwidth, and slowing down everything... well I will try to hit them where it hurts.
1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business.
2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong.
It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work.
Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs.
>They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at
The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.
<plug>
So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola). The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus.
https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/
</plug>
...the following types of ad experiences fell beneath the initial
Better Ads Standard: pop-up ads, prestitial ads, ads with density
greater than 30%, flashing animated ads, auto-play video ads with
sound, poststitial ads with countdown, full-screen scrollover ads, and
large sticky ads.
same source as the story: https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-releases-...
Privacy is not a massive concern for people, but it is a concern. It's enough of a concern for people to mistrust the brand serving the adverts - google.
Considering how much google relies on its brand, trust is a big part of the reason why people entrust google with their often very private searches.
People don't like advertising for lot of reasons, that's why they use ad blockers and not ad filters.
This is why googles attempt to introduce a block on advertising is like a salesman attempting to stop people from cold calling.
Publishers have other choices for ad supply, Google is not the most lucrative, but it's the best for high volume so it's everywhere, because people need to get their fill rates.
If a major browser like Chrome starts punishing publishers for not policing their supply, it'll only benefit the big networks.
(I'm actually very skeptical of this article's claims...)
I tried out Firefox for a week this year and the experience didn't come anywhere close to that of using Chrome, not only for development but also as a user. Heck, even Electrolysis is still a mess with half the extensions still blocking it.
It's really beyond my understanding how a megacorp like Google has a product with worse UX than old Opera which was developed by what, a hundred people, maybe?
Just yesterday I tapped a news story from Google Now only to be greeted with a full screen and vibrating phone ad a few seconds after the story loaded. Totally unacceptable and from a story promoted by Google within Google Now!
The big issue for Google is clearly conflict of interest.
But like I and others have said something needs to be done to sort out the mess that is web advertising. We need industry standards on what is acceptable and anything that isn't gets blocked.
Yeah. If only Google allowed uBlock Origin to be installed on Chrome for mobile they wouldn't need to create their own adblocker. /s
And for the record, I click ads sometimes. Mainly on Facebook, because they're impressively relevant. I've discovered quite a few apps and products that I like through ads.
Most people don't. Enough do that make the practice profitable enough to fill our mailboxes with spam.
The same applies to scummy web ads.
You might not click on the ads, but (if you're not blocking them) you're probably seeing them, and remembering some of them, and they influence you.
Not even my parents or grand parents click ads. I wouldn't believe anybody who claims there might be an unknown group of people who really do click ads.
https://www.betterads.org/about/
"Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online media ..."
Google is a member, FWIW, among very many.
Once both companies destroy each other, we can pick up the pieces left over and start to build a nicer web free of these two privacy plagues.
Seems like a safe bet they wouldn't serve ads that would get blocked.
http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-...
And, honestly, that site is basically a south african blog; as much as I love picking a fight when it's due, I don't think Google is to blame here, but the advertisers targeting their core demographics.
or is it
"Advertising company will block ads (obviously except its own)"? "Content providers - use Google's ad network if you want to make sure you get ad revenue from Chrome!"
Will Google try to remain "fair"? Does the profit-maximizing moves align with "fairness"?
It's a risky move by Google and one made likely more out of need for themselves than need for their users.
For all the wonders of Google it's still very much a one trick pony from a business standpoint. Anything that threatens their ad revenue is a very real threat to their business health. All the fun "side businesses" while very cool aren't exactly paying the bills.
Advertising is dead in its current state. The first banner ad had a success rate of 95%, compare that with today's metrics of less than 1% and you see the issue.
Google is trying to do something to please shareholders, but ultimately this strategy will fail.
There is a silver lining for users here. If Google does go down this route, Firefox and Edge will eventually follow suit. This somewhat concerted action against intrusive ads will put a lot of pressure on ad agencies and content providers, which could be the impetus they need to rethink their ad delivery strategy to be more user-friendly.
Google has every incentive to make advertising on the web palatable for most everyone. If that means blocking some ads, then they need to do that.
A while ago, Apple added ad blocking features to iOS 9, however users had to explicitly enable them by installing an adblocker apps. I have not seen significant impact by this move (G and FB are still growing).
They wouldn't be impacted by this at all, in my opinion who this hurts most is publishers.
Also what about my comment? If I publish something even on Facebook why I'm not paid too? Where is the limit? If there's "nothing free" principe why people help each others on forum? (it's start to become less and less) people don't want more to do free things, but this is bad, bad because it's was about helping, information, not about payment to read crap. or steal content from other (pinterest)
According to wikipedia they have criticized Microsoft for enabling Do Not Track by default in Internet Explorer 10.
They also went against Mozilla for planning to turn on blocking of 3rd party HTTP cookies in Firefox.
They even blocked AdBlock to attend an event of theirs.
So I am sure they will just LOVE that Google is making all of its competitors dance to the IAB's tune. I wonder who is pulling the strings behind IAB when Google goes and does something like this.
Whatever "polite" implementation Google implements in Chrome won't be enough anymore.
He was on this website: http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-langstroth-h... and the first ad said "Click here to download the video player extension" which got him to install a browser extension.
When I asked him why, he said "well, I'm trying to watch this tutorial video and it said I needed an extension". It was just an unrelated ad. Adsense must've picked up the "install" keyword on the page and started showing "download" ads.
I told him it was an ad and he went back to the page, falling for the 2nd mid-article ad further down which was a large play/download button. The ads made him think he was looking for a video even though there is no video in the blog post tutorial.
Watching my dad get fooled like this so helplessly really nauseated me, and it's Google's own ads. How many ad clicks are from people thinking it's part of the content?
I installed uBlock Origin immediately.
Now, it might seem that Google wants to maintain an edge over these with the new ad-blocking feature but one can tell that it will only block ads outside Google network.
The way I see it as a bigger bet on cannibalizing itself because if Google does not then somebody else will.
Then again, I wish Gmail could see that 60% of my email traffic is with one other person and stop showing me ads for dating sites. And I wish that Amazon ads would be for goods complimentary to the things I've bought rather than ads for the items I've already bought.
Unless you have some lobbying ace up your sleeve to force 'acceptable ads' as a standard to implement.
I haven't used Opera since they changed rendering engines, so I can't comment beyond that.
My take: Ad wrangler attempts to quash competition by leveraging it's dominant browser share.
How on earth does an ad slinger take the moral high ground wrt ad intrusiveness or whatever is currently considered naughty by targets of ads?
The web has been in a downward spiral for years: Fewer and fewer users browse the web without an adblocker. Which leads Publishers to bombard them with more and more ads. Which leads more users to use adblockers.
Blocking annoying ads for all users by default could break this vicious circle.
Why are ads that consume a few too many CPU cycles more morally repugnant than ads that nearly invisibly manipulate a consumer's search results with undermining, misdirecting, or hortatory messaging?
The primary goal for this possible feature is to block "bad" ads, as deemed by the ad industry.
Publishers that use DFP will be paying Google to serve ads that will ultimately be blocked by a Google owned browser.
It would be neat if they checked your DNT setting and then blocked tracking based on that.
So where are the ad networks that offer such ad-type?
Yeah like every journalist do not give your source, make false article, try to say what will be the future and fail to do it. This site have BIG annoying ad at start. F * this site. (Downvote me it's free) this is not a value added article, it only try to bias make view and try to pretend they know what will happen, like we all know, journalist don't know anything they are just follower and they need to start to give info that matter, that are true of today, not of the future, without any added value.
With that said, how in the heavens or hells will Google be able to defend this move from competing ad agencies while letting through their own ads? This cannot be the first we'll hear of this if it actually happens.
Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you.
If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get another intermediary who checks the plate and hides the rest of the olives. Or do whatever you want, because you're not obligated to consume any part of the salad that you don't want to.
Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.
I still don't think there is a moral right or wrong with AdBlockers. Web sites are text--how you choose to render them is (or should be) up to you, in my opinion.
Sure, if you're blocking ads on a platform where you paid a subscription I'd agree with you.
Hmm, maybe I should patent that idea.
How does this bode for anti-trust protections?
Seems reasonable considering Chromium goal:
> Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web.
All of a sudden, Mozilla's decision to move towards Chrome's extension model looks suspicious.
Or are they also going to block user-tracking?
Just wondering.